2009 (4) TMI 183 - AT - Customs

Import of obscene and are prohibited goods Games imported by assessee, as per expert opinion of member of Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification - Revenue is of the opinion that as the goods are obscene and objectionable articles, they are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The contention of the Revenue is that the games are for group sex leading to obscene action. The Revenue relied on instructions which are printed on the Rules of the Games. - The import of obscene and objectionable articles are prohibited under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Notification No. l-Cus. dated 18-1-1964 issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The offending goods are obscene and objectionable as the same are for Group Sex. I find that the opinion of the expert in respect of the goods imported by the Appellants is given without taking into consideration the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Confiscation upheld

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods on grounds of being obscene and prohibited.
2. Expert opinion on the nature of the imported goods.
3. Contention regarding the goods being meant for adults only.
4. Revenue's claim of goods being obscene and objectionable.
5. Interpretation of Rules of Games for the imported products.
6. Prohibition of import of obscene articles under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the confiscation of goods imported by the Appellants, deemed obscene and prohibited. The goods included 'Glass Games-small', 'Carton Games - big', 'Carton Games - small', and 'Toys (Dart & Shooter Games).' The Revenue contended that the goods were for group sex, leading to obscene actions, justifying confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Appellants submitted an expert opinion by Mrs. Ratnottama Sengupta, emphasizing that the goods were intended for responsible adults and not objectionable. Mrs. Sengupta's credentials were highlighted, but the Tribunal noted that her opinion did not consider the Customs Act's provisions. The Tribunal found the expert opinion insufficient to support the Appellants' case.

3. The Appellants argued that the goods were for sale to adults only and not obscene. They heavily relied on Mrs. Sengupta's opinion and pointed out the availability of similar items in the market. However, the Tribunal found that the expert opinion did not align with the Customs Act's regulations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. The Revenue's stance was that the goods were obscene and objectionable, justifying confiscation under the Customs Act. They based their argument on the printed instructions of the games, which suggested activities related to group sex. The Tribunal examined the Rules of Games, including a 'Kama Sutra Memory Game,' and concluded that the goods were indeed obscene, upholding the confiscation.

5. The Tribunal scrutinized the Rules of Games for the imported products, revealing explicit instructions for various games like 'The Quickie,' 'The Crash Course,' and 'The Super Orgy.' These instructions detailed actions related to intimate activities, supporting the Revenue's claim of the goods being obscene and objectionable.

6. Import of obscene and objectionable articles is prohibited under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal referenced Notification No. l-Cus. dated 18-1-1964, which prohibits the import of any obscene book, pamphlet, drawing, painting, or article. Given the nature of the imported goods and the provisions of the Customs Act, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the miscellaneous application.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, expert opinion, regulatory provisions, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the confiscation of imported goods deemed obscene and prohibited under the Customs Act, 1962.

← Previous Next →